Here is a letter written to the editor of The Tidings concerning last weeks column The Tridentine Mass: The views of two priests:
Here are the top five surprising results to Summorum Pontificum:
- Progressive liturgists and others are now finally concerned that priests properly know and use the rubrics. At least for the extraordinary form of Mass in the Latin Rite.
- A new concern for the number of people attending Mass. Declining numbers at experimental liturgy did not invoke a similar concern.
- That priests more than adequately know Latin. At least if they want to be allowed to celebrate the 1962 missal.
- The word "extraordinary" is finally coming to a proper understanding of what it means. Now if only they can learn to take the same view towards Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
- Some bishops are now much more concerned about how liturgy is celebrated in their diocese and even want to test their priests capability in this regard. Maybe even one day the same concern will be applied to the ordinary form of the Mass.
Rich Leonadi has an update on what Fr. Daly said about a neighboring indult Mass from a reader.
I just spoke to the Pastor at St. Francis deSales regarding Father Daly’s Tridentine Mass column, and he is very upset. He says the article is full of lies, and he has spoken to the Auxiliary Bishop about it. First of all, as he told the Bishop, he is NOT exasperated and that this Mass is NOT a burden; he told the Bishop that if it were a burden, he would have let him know. He does not prepare two different homilies, and yes they no longer move the altar, but only because the microphone wires kept getting damaged during the process. He said that attendance is on the increase, and that it is not all elderly people and they do not attend because they want a short liturgy, because his Tridentine Mass is at least an hour long, longer than his other Masses. This priest is truly upset, and I hope Fr. Daly is called to task on this.
My original post on the subject is here.
L.A. Catholic asks a good question.
If, as the liberal Catholics say, Jesus is really and truly present in the congregation at Mass, and if, as the liberal Catholics also say, we need to put the really and truly present Jesus of the Blessed Sacrament off to the side and away from Mass…
…Then shouldn’t we also put the whole congregation off to the side, too?
And should we put the Gospel in a side chapel too, for the same reason?
I’m just looking for a little consistency from the liberal Catholics, here.
And shouldn’t we build giant walk in monstrance’s for the congregation to sit in? I guess genuflecting as you pass each person could get tiresome on the knees. Though with the direction of most songs being directed towards ourselves they should install mirrors for his to genuflect in front of.
The Tidings newspaper of the Diocese of Los Angeles has an article on the Motu Proprio called "The Tridentine Mass: The views of two priests."
At first I figured this would have the typical pro and con viewpoints. The two priests are both columnist of the USCCB’s Catholic News Service
and both viewpoints are pretty much unhappy with the permission and quite negative.
It seems like only yesterday that I was celebrating Mass in Latin with my back to the people.
Hardly the "full and active participation" that Vatican II called for.
Apart from the schismatic followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few young people who are nostalgic for a church they never knew, almost nobody is pressing for it.
If only we could tax Tridentine Rite related clich� we could put an end to the income tax.
The first viewpoint basically says only elderly people who don’t like shaking hands, don’t like three readings, and want a 45 minute Mass go to the indult Mass at a neighboring parish. Now I only have the data for my own parish and its indult Mass, but it is well attended and the average age certainly does not skew elderly. I guess there must be more nostalgia in the water here.
Paul at Alive and Young fisks the article by Elizabeth Harrington that I posted on the other day. He makes some good points in reaction and ends in noting:
I am going to go out on a whim here and assume that Elizabeth writes this article because she has been confronted by individuals in most uncharitable ways. If you do have to bring up a liturgical issue in a parish or diocese be sure to do your homework on the topic first. Then if you must present it to a liturgist or priest be sure to do it gently and with charity.
That is always the danger whenever we have an "us and them "attitude and we turn problems we perceive with the liturgy into confrontations.
It is quite easy to get upset when the liturgy is abused and if we carry this anger when we talk to a person involved we will likely achieve nothing.
I remember one occasion when I spoke to a priest after Mass that I tried to be charitable and first complimented him on his very good homily before I addressed my concern. Though I got the runaround from him and a reply that stretched credibility and I am afraid I left with some parting replies that I immediately felt bad for afterwards. I should have prayed first before talking to him.
What struck me about Elizabeth Harrington article was how she had developed what appears to be a defensive attitude and an "us against them" attitude. The problem with so many liturgical experts is that they just never acknowledge that there is such thing as a liturgical abuse (or you get the idea a liturgical abuse is celebrating a Mass with accord to the rubrics.) That sometimes people are correct in their liturgical gripes and that the situation needs to be resolved. Having an elitist view where only the liturgical expert can talk about the liturgy is quite ironic since so many liturgists put so much emphasis on the people involved in the liturgy in the first place.
Gerald has a letter from the director of liturgy, Fr. Willis, in my diocese (St. Augustine) that I was rather disappointed with in its restriction concerning the celebration of the extraordinary form of Mass.
Bishop Galeone has determined that a group of 50 people registered at the parish is the minimum threshold for the Mass to be celebrated in the extraordinary form. Now I really love my bishop and consider him to be quite solid, but I do think this is a mistake that infringes on the authority given to priests by Summorum Pontificum.
Once again the bad translation of "stable group" is being used in a restrictive way. I find it ironic that the memo has strict requirements in priests knowing Latin before celebrating this form of Mass when as Fr. Z notes:
The diocesan norm quotes an unofficial and inaccurate translation of the Latin, which has the word coetus. A coetus has no specific number and can be, in fact, very small. It is certainly more than two. Some say as small as three people, which could include the priest himself since he is at the parish. The adverb used in the Latin, NOT an adjective like English "stable" – no derivation of which is to be found in the Latin document – is continenter which means "continuously". There must be a group of an unspecified number continuously present (Art. 5, § 1. In paroeciis, ubi coetus fidelium traditioni liturgicae antecedenti adhaerentium continenter exsistit…)
What if 40, 43, or even 49 people of the parish request the Mass.
Will they need Abraham to step in for mediation like he did for the people of Sodom. This seems to me that this should be an area of prudence specifically by the pastor
and it is micro-management to set an artificial number. The pastor in his prudence has to be the one to decide if the number of parishioners requesting the 1962 missal is enough for him to be able invest the time.
It seems to me in the majority of cases that to celebrate the extraordinary form of Mass that another Mass has to be added to the parish schedule which certainly presents difficulties, but they are difficulties the pastor should decide. Surely one of the purposes of the Motu Proprio was to give this authority at the pastor level and undo restrictions by a diocese defeat that purpose.
The concept of subsidiarity
is really lost when you do this.
Now I can understand a diocese concerned that the 1962 missal is celebrated correctly and that the priest knows Latin well enough to celebrate the Mass correctly and that the rubrics are followed. But being an expert in Latin is not required and their are plenty of resources to learn the rubrics and to celebrate the older form correctly. It will really depend on how this memorandum is carried out in reality and whether it becomes rigorously restrictive. If only bishops across the country who are so concerned about the rubrics being celebrated correctly with the ordinary form of Mass. Now I have noticed since Bishop Galeone became our bishop there has been less outright liturgical abuses in the various parishes I sometimes attend so I am not trying to knock him here.
I also happen to somewhat know Fr. Willis who wrote this memorandum. I once attended a class he gave at our Eucharistic Congress and have been to several Masses as this parish. I found him to be a solid priest and that his Masses were abuse free. Though I wasn’t happy with his rebuilt parish Church where the sanctuary is extended out into the congregation and the altar is almost in the middle of the Church. He did celebrate a quite beautiful Mass during the interregnum and the choir was spectacular, especially the chanted Litany of the Saints. I just think his memo is unduly restrictive.
Read Fr. Z’s post on the subject for a much better and more technical look at this memorandum.
SOMETIMES it seems that everyone is an expert on liturgy and that personal preference carries more weight than the considered judgement of someone with years of study and experience in the field.
The self-proclaimed liturgy “experts” will often quote liturgical law to prove their point.
Thus starts an article dripping with arrogance and a "I have a degree and so you all should just please shut up" attitude. The article was written by Elizabeth Harrington the education officer with the Brisbane archdiocesan Liturgical Commission.
Creative Minority Report has thoroughly fisked the article so I would suggest you go there first.
Elizabeth Harrington does make some valid points in writing about not reading documents in isolation and that training in theology, liturgy, and canon law are quite helpful. The problem is that often these experts require that we accept their interpretation and not the plain text. "Who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes." For example the term active participation has a history not at all keeping with its modern interpretation and was first used by Saint Pius X and was as Fr. Fessio S.J. notes to be consistent with "holiness," "dignity," "sacred mysteries," and "solemn prayer." So knowing context and history is truly important and yet the "experts" have totally ripped this term and many others from their moorings.
Besides you can read much of Redemptionis Sacramentum and know exactly what is proscribed without having a degree or intensive liturgical knowledge. Yet this document had to be interpreted by so many liturgists before it could be handed down to the parish level. Plus one of the smokescreens within recent years is that Vatican documents must first be implemented by a diocese before they can take effect. In recent history we can look at the indult that was revoked by Pope Benedict for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion to assist the priest in the purification of the vessels at Mass. Compliance required nobody to have a degree in liturgy and yet this had to be slowly implemented or in case of some diocese totally ignored.
She ends her attack on the "liturgical police" by reminding us "“Love one another as I have loved you”… if we’re not prepared to act by this commandment, what good will all the liturgical laws in the world do us?"
While there is much to commend in this in regards to the liturgy wars, much of the problem was because the authority of the Church was ignored and substituted by the liturgist’s own agenda. Love is willing the good for another and you have to wonder how much love some liturgists have had for others when liturgical creativity becomes the norm and when people are upset that the liturgy is treated like a lab rat it is their own fault for not listening to the experts. No doubt they intended good, but the liturgy wars have been the result and to blame those who are the victims of liturgical attack is rather misplaced.
Julie at Happy Catholic posted Fr. L’s. announcement on church etiquette and as a result Deacon Greg sent her another bulletin announcement.
BRITNEY SPEARS CONCERT CANCELED! Unfortunately, our efforts to get pop sensation Britney Spears to perform a benefit fund raiser for the parish have proven unsuccessful. Her calendar is full. Therefore, those who have been arriving at Mass every Sunday dressed for a Britney Spears concert should know that they don’t have to do that anymore. Modest church-going attire will do nicely. We will notify you if the situation changes.